Peter Kent: Why he drank the Kool-Aid

What a year for journalists-turned-politicians. Those you think would know the most about the perils of politics fell victim to the perils of politics.

Senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin had a combined seven decades of reporting on politicians who abused expense accounts and the like. They didn’t learn much.

Longtime broadcaster Peter Kent spent much time abroad reporting on suppression of freedom of speech. But in the Harper government he was anything but a champion of openness. No department was criticized more for muzzling than his own Environment Canada.

Recently, I sat down with Kent for lunch. I half-expected him to be surrounded by public relations aides, but none were visible. When the server asked about drinks, he didn’t send out for Kool-Aid from the prime minister’s office.

Kent was dropped from the cabinet his year, but he seemed in good spirits. “I’ve got the scar tissue,” he declared, summing up his experience. “But I’m still a proud Conservative.”

No big regrets, he claimed, not on communications policy nor, with an exception or two, on the government’s reputedly languid pace on green files.

What the media don’t seem to understand, he explained, is that “once a journalist steps across the line into politics, a different set of operating principles snaps into place.” A lot of “loyal lip-biting” comes into play.

If you don’t suck it up, good luck. But didn’t his decades of experience as a communicator buy him any liberties on that front? Didn’t they seek his advice? Here, Kent paused and, with the deep broadcaster’s cadence, intoned: “The authority you ascribe to me in my previous life did not transfer.”

What the media don’t seem to understand, he explained, is that ‘once a journalist steps across the line into politics, a different set of operating principles snaps into place.’ A lot of ‘loyal lip-biting’ comes into play.

There were occasions — which he wouldn’t describe because of “cabinet confidentiality” — when he told his government colleagues they were going astray. But he didn’t push too hard on many files. Some meetings in caucus were heated and he had some sessions with the prime minister. “But once something is decided, I’ve always been of the conviction that that’s it. If you don’t like it, you resign or you fight on to another day and hope for change.”

But how could he tolerate the muzzling of distinguished scientists in Environment? Political chaperones, Tory true-believers, followed them around with tape recorders as in a one-party state.

Well no, it wasn’t really like that, Kent protested. “The department enabled thousands of interviews every year. I got to tell you our relationship with scientists was good.”

If so, why were they out protesting? “You could get a rally of 500 scientists on just about any issue,” he countered. In this country “there is an ideological divide, there is a partisan divide.” As minister, he said, he had to guard against attempts by a cynical press “to drag scientists into policy areas.”

Scientists veering from PMO talking points? That’s the type of democracy these Tories haven’t been able to tolerate. Maybe Kent is right. Maybe you could find 500 scientists to protest just about anything. If so — aside from the gagged scientists — we haven’t seen them.

Kent did differ with the PMOers in pressing them to get oil-and-gas industry regulations in place on emissions. The Conservatives still haven’t gotten around to doing it. He fought unsuccessfully to overhaul the Species at Risk Act. More recently, he spoke out against the Harper team’s decision to draft an enemy’s list, saying it smacked of a Nixonian mentality.

But by and large his problem isn’t with the Conservatives. “My bigger beef is with journalism generally.” He talked about the good old days when there was a lot of “straight reporting.” Now columnists are on the front page, he said, and there is far less objective reporting. Throw in the blogosphere and Twitter and the result, he said, is that the opinionizers have taken over.

There is some truth to that. Back in the day, newspapers used to have ten or more news stories on the front page. Now you’re lucky to find two or three, interspersed with opinion pieces and promo fluff. Attracting the advertising dollar was always a priority in journalism, Kent pointed out, but now even more so.

“The accent is on the viewership, the listenership, the readership more than on the content that is going out. A lot of complicated stories I couldn’t interest a journalist in to save my life.”

One was his work on the monitoring of water quality in the Athabasca River Basin. “Show me a front page story about that.” The coverage instead went only to “the arena stories where there is going to (be) blood in the sand.”

Though he’s out of cabinet, Kent said he feels no bitterness. “I remain fiercely loyal to the prime minister … I believe he is the smartest and most capable individual to lead Canada today.”

Asked about the PMO’s admitted cover-up with respect to the Senate scandal, he allowed that “some of the evidence released to date is deeply concerning.”

“I’m waiting for the results of the full investigation before I form judgmental conclusions.”

On the government’s overall approach, he hasn’t changed his mind. He is proud of his own record and that of his party. He drank the Kool-Aid and it didn’t taste all that bad. To his critics, especially those in the media, he offers no apologies. We don’t realize, he said, what a different world it is on the inside.

Lawrence Martin is the author of 10 books, including six national bestsellers. His most recent, Harperland, was nominated for the Shaughnessy Cohen award. His other works include two volumes on Jean Chrétien, two on Canada-U.S. relations and three books on hockey.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.